| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Big Oil Imperialism |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bill Clark |
 Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on every
aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each chapter of my
textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are prefaced with
glaring flaws in modern engineering construction practices - bad
indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of Attention Deficit
Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even helped the ozone layer, has
cost $1 trillion and increased utility bills everywhere by 25% because
the new "ozone safe" freons are that much less efficient, and so
forth.
There's a second website, linked from my resume page, that leads to a
full scale political attack on "Big Oil Imperialism," which has
infected virtually every aspect of modern society with its insidious
evil.
The URL is http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/
WH Clark
Austin, Texas
Bar X Software Inc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charliew2 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Clark wrote:
[quote:d828ac5a3f]I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on every
aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each chapter of my
textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are prefaced with
glaring flaws in modern engineering construction practices - bad
indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of Attention Deficit
Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even helped the ozone layer, has
cost $1 trillion and increased utility bills everywhere by 25% because
the new "ozone safe" freons are that much less efficient,
[/quote:d828ac5a3f]
(CUT)
C'mon, Bill. A refigeration system consists of two parts: capital
investment in equipment, and the working fluid that you use for heat
transfer. If a given refrigerant is somewhat less "efficient" than it
predecessor, you would use more area in the condenser and evaporator to make
up the difference (i.e., a higher "one time" capital expenditure). It's
very premature to conclude that everyone is paying higher utility bills
based on having to use a different refrigerant. Do you have data to back up
such a statement?
Note - I don't like the change from Freon 12 to something else either. I
also don't like a "broad brush" conclusion that is unsubstantiated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:108315g2fk5jbf0@corp.supernews.com...
[quote:b290c55021]Bill Clark wrote:
I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on every
aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each chapter of my
textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are prefaced with
glaring flaws in modern engineering construction practices - bad
indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of Attention Deficit
Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even helped the ozone layer, has
cost $1 trillion and increased utility bills everywhere by 25% because
the new "ozone safe" freons are that much less efficient,
(CUT)
C'mon, Bill. A refigeration system consists of two parts: capital
investment in equipment, and the working fluid that you use for heat
transfer. If a given refrigerant is somewhat less "efficient" than it
predecessor, you would use more area in the condenser and evaporator to
make
up the difference (i.e., a higher "one time" capital expenditure). It's
very premature to conclude that everyone is paying higher utility bills
based on having to use a different refrigerant. Do you have data to back
up
such a statement?
[/quote:b290c55021]
No. He just repeats it ever time it is disproven. The fact is that the HCFC
replacements are more efficient than older CFC11 units. He has the
percentage about right but is exactly the opposite of the real situation in
which older CFC units were much less efficient than when running the SAME
unit under the replacement HCFC. A double bonus, with lower ozone depletion
and higher efficiency.
http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/eqooolw7iyor74z7t4atxaf7wyzbu7fkiojcm6kmtodxgm6pecafqri3ugknvb344k6o54y4n3cs5rju7rnwy6vxggc/com_ritz401_fs.pdf
"At full load conditions, the HCFC chiller was approximately 25 percent more
efficient than the CFC-11 chiller (0.6 kW per ton versus 0.8 kW per ton)."
http://www.trane.com/commercial/newsrelease/032502a.asp
"The S-Series chiller uses a direct-drive design that eliminates the need
for gears and, therefore, the need for an oil-based lubrication system
altogether. The HCFC-123 refrigerant used in the chiller not only enables
this direct-drive design; it allows for 5 to 20 percent greater chiller
efficiency and provides the lubrication for the unit."
http://www.fpl.com/savings/energy_advisor/EA/PA_14.html
"Chillers that use HCFC-123 currently have the highest efficiencies, down to
0.49 kilowatts per ton (kW/ton) at full load and ARI conditions "
[quote:b290c55021]
Note - I don't like the change from Freon 12 to something else either. I
also don't like a "broad brush" conclusion that is unsubstantiated.
[/quote:b290c55021]
Why? Are you against improving technology such as that which occurred under
the spur of the Montreal Protocol?? Do you not like the idea of saving 25%
on power costs? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charliew2 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ian St. John wrote:
[quote:1c9171e651]"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:108315g2fk5jbf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bill Clark wrote:
I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on
every aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each chapter
of my textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are prefaced
with glaring flaws in modern engineering construction practices -
bad indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of Attention Deficit
Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even helped the ozone layer,
has cost $1 trillion and increased utility bills everywhere by 25%
because the new "ozone safe" freons are that much less efficient,
(CUT)
C'mon, Bill. A refigeration system consists of two parts: capital
investment in equipment, and the working fluid that you use for heat
transfer. If a given refrigerant is somewhat less "efficient" than
it predecessor, you would use more area in the condenser and
evaporator to make up the difference (i.e., a higher "one time"
capital expenditure). It's very premature to conclude that everyone
is paying higher utility bills based on having to use a different
refrigerant. Do you have data to back up such a statement?
No. He just repeats it ever time it is disproven. The fact is that
the HCFC replacements are more efficient than older CFC11 units. He
has the percentage about right but is exactly the opposite of the
real situation in which older CFC units were much less efficient than
when running the SAME unit under the replacement HCFC. A double
bonus, with lower ozone depletion and higher efficiency.
http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/eqooolw7iyor74z7t4atxaf7wyzbu7fkiojcm6kmtodx[/quote:1c9171e651]
gm6pecafqri3ugknvb344k6o54y4n3cs5rju7rnwy6vxggc/com_ritz401_fs.pdf
[quote:1c9171e651]"At full load conditions, the HCFC chiller was approximately 25
percent more efficient than the CFC-11 chiller (0.6 kW per ton versus
0.8 kW per ton)."
http://www.trane.com/commercial/newsrelease/032502a.asp
"The S-Series chiller uses a direct-drive design that eliminates the
need for gears and, therefore, the need for an oil-based lubrication
system altogether. The HCFC-123 refrigerant used in the chiller not
only enables this direct-drive design; it allows for 5 to 20 percent
greater chiller efficiency and provides the lubrication for the unit."
http://www.fpl.com/savings/energy_advisor/EA/PA_14.html
"Chillers that use HCFC-123 currently have the highest efficiencies,
down to
0.49 kilowatts per ton (kW/ton) at full load and ARI conditions "
Note - I don't like the change from Freon 12 to something else
either. I also don't like a "broad brush" conclusion that is
unsubstantiated.
Why? Are you against improving technology such as that which occurred
under the spur of the Montreal Protocol?? Do you not like the idea of
saving 25% on power costs?
[/quote:1c9171e651]
Don't make the same mistake Bill is making. Re-read my comments regarding
capital expenditure vs. working fluid.
Note - from an engineering standpoint, I liked Freon 12 because of its
excellent physical properties. It has a high molecular weight (dense
vapor), a relatively high heat of vaporization, is non-toxic to humans, has
a very high vapor pressure (it works well as a refigerant at ambient
conditions), etc.
And yes, I realize that there may be reasons to try a different refrigerant.
With my background, I could design a refrigeration process that uses a LOT
of different working fluids, including ammonia, the lighter hydrocarbons
(C3, C4), various substituted methane components, or damned near anything
else that has a substantial vapor pressure at ambient conditions. The most
desireable choice of working fluid involves an optimization problem, where
you look for the "best" set (e.g., non-toxic to people or the environment)
of physical properties that is also the most economic. By "economic", I
mean the combination of capital expenditure, operating costs, and
maintenance costs, over the life of the system.
Final note - this is not about improving technology. Refrigeration
technology is well known, and consists of a process which is actually a heat
pump. Regardless of the working fluid you select, you still have to go
through the same steps to pump heat with a "standard" refrigeration system:
* compress a condensible vapor
* condense that vapor against ambient air (or other working fluid)
* drop the pressure on the condensate
* boil the condensate with the heat contained within some type of "box"
* send the low pressure boiled vapor to the condenser, where it can liberate
its heat to the ambient working fluid |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10836sih5mh04a6@corp.supernews.com...
[quote:1f30fe0c87]Ian St. John wrote:
"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:108315g2fk5jbf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bill Clark wrote:
I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on
every aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each chapter
of my textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are prefaced
with glaring flaws in modern engineering construction practices -
bad indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of Attention Deficit
Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even helped the ozone layer,
has cost $1 trillion and increased utility bills everywhere by 25%
because the new "ozone safe" freons are that much less efficient,
(CUT)
C'mon, Bill. A refigeration system consists of two parts: capital
investment in equipment, and the working fluid that you use for heat
transfer. If a given refrigerant is somewhat less "efficient" than
it predecessor, you would use more area in the condenser and
evaporator to make up the difference (i.e., a higher "one time"
capital expenditure). It's very premature to conclude that everyone
is paying higher utility bills based on having to use a different
refrigerant. Do you have data to back up such a statement?
No. He just repeats it ever time it is disproven. The fact is that
the HCFC replacements are more efficient than older CFC11 units. He
has the percentage about right but is exactly the opposite of the
real situation in which older CFC units were much less efficient than
when running the SAME unit under the replacement HCFC. A double
bonus, with lower ozone depletion and higher efficiency.
http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/eqooolw7iyor74z7t4atxaf7wyzbu7fkiojcm6kmtodx
gm6pecafqri3ugknvb344k6o54y4n3cs5rju7rnwy6vxggc/com_ritz401_fs.pdf
"At full load conditions, the HCFC chiller was approximately 25
percent more efficient than the CFC-11 chiller (0.6 kW per ton versus
0.8 kW per ton)."
http://www.trane.com/commercial/newsrelease/032502a.asp
"The S-Series chiller uses a direct-drive design that eliminates the
need for gears and, therefore, the need for an oil-based lubrication
system altogether. The HCFC-123 refrigerant used in the chiller not
only enables this direct-drive design; it allows for 5 to 20 percent
greater chiller efficiency and provides the lubrication for the unit."
http://www.fpl.com/savings/energy_advisor/EA/PA_14.html
"Chillers that use HCFC-123 currently have the highest efficiencies,
down to
0.49 kilowatts per ton (kW/ton) at full load and ARI conditions "
Note - I don't like the change from Freon 12 to something else
either. I also don't like a "broad brush" conclusion that is
unsubstantiated.
Why? Are you against improving technology such as that which occurred
under the spur of the Montreal Protocol?? Do you not like the idea of
saving 25% on power costs?
Don't make the same mistake Bill is making. Re-read my comments regarding
capital expenditure vs. working fluid.
[/quote:1f30fe0c87]
I read them. They were accurate but did not correct Bill on the main point
of his claim of low efficiency.
[quote:1f30fe0c87]
Note - from an engineering standpoint, I liked Freon 12 because of its
excellent physical properties. It has a high molecular weight (dense
vapor), a relatively high heat of vaporization, is non-toxic to humans,
has
a very high vapor pressure (it works well as a refigerant at ambient
conditions), etc.
[/quote:1f30fe0c87]
The physical characteristics of HCFCs are not a whole lot different. Most
chillers can be converted by replacing the charge. Some conversions use
HCFC-123 which requires seal replacements, and sometimes a larger compressor
unit, but which can pay off easily in increased efficiency.
[quote:1f30fe0c87]
And yes, I realize that there may be reasons to try a different
refrigerant.
With my background, I could design a refrigeration process that uses a LOT
of different working fluids, including ammonia, the lighter hydrocarbons
(C3, C4), various substituted methane components, or damned near anything
else that has a substantial vapor pressure at ambient conditions. The
most
desireable choice of working fluid involves an optimization problem, where
you look for the "best" set (e.g., non-toxic to people or the environment)
of physical properties that is also the most economic. By "economic", I
mean the combination of capital expenditure, operating costs, and
maintenance costs, over the life of the system.
[/quote:1f30fe0c87]
So the real issue is not the loss of this 'vital CFC-11' working fluid, is
it? There are a lot of close equivalents or better options. Payback on
conversion of an old CFC-11 chiller with a new HCFC-123 unit can be under 9
months due to power savings alone.
[quote:1f30fe0c87]
Final note - this is not about improving technology. Refrigeration
technology is well known, and consists of a process which is actually a
heat
pump. Regardless of the working fluid you select, you still have to go
through the same steps to pump heat with a "standard" refrigeration
system:
* compress a condensible vapor
* condense that vapor against ambient air (or other working fluid)
* drop the pressure on the condensate
* boil the condensate with the heat contained within some type of "box"
* send the low pressure boiled vapor to the condenser, where it can
liberate
its heat to the ambient working fluid
[/quote:1f30fe0c87]
Many conversion just change the controls, seals, and compressor while
leaving the bulk of the unit ( fans, and heat exchangers ) alone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charliew2 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ian St. John wrote:
[quote:220abb63c6]"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10836sih5mh04a6@corp.supernews.com...
Ian St. John wrote:
"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:108315g2fk5jbf0@corp.supernews.com...
Bill Clark wrote:
I am the author of two textbooks on energy conservation with
McGraw-Hill, and I have a website that is a full scale attack on
every aspect of "Big Oil Imperialism." Excerpts from each
chapter of my textbook "Retrofitting for Energy Conservation" are
prefaced with glaring flaws in modern engineering construction
practices - bad indoor air quality has caused the epidemic of
Attention Deficit Disorder; the Freon Ban, which hasn't even
helped the ozone layer, has cost $1 trillion and increased
utility bills everywhere by 25% because the new "ozone safe"
freons are that much less efficient,
(CUT)
C'mon, Bill. A refigeration system consists of two parts: capital
investment in equipment, and the working fluid that you use for
heat transfer. If a given refrigerant is somewhat less
"efficient" than it predecessor, you would use more area in the
condenser and evaporator to make up the difference (i.e., a higher
"one time" capital expenditure). It's very premature to conclude
that everyone is paying higher utility bills based on having to
use a different refrigerant. Do you have data to back up such a
statement?
No. He just repeats it ever time it is disproven. The fact is that
the HCFC replacements are more efficient than older CFC11 units. He
has the percentage about right but is exactly the opposite of the
real situation in which older CFC units were much less efficient
than when running the SAME unit under the replacement HCFC. A double
bonus, with lower ozone depletion and higher efficiency.
http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/eqooolw7iyor74z7t4atxaf7wyzbu7fkiojcm6kmtodx
gm6pecafqri3ugknvb344k6o54y4n3cs5rju7rnwy6vxggc/com_ritz401_fs.pdf
"At full load conditions, the HCFC chiller was approximately 25
percent more efficient than the CFC-11 chiller (0.6 kW per ton
versus
0.8 kW per ton)."
http://www.trane.com/commercial/newsrelease/032502a.asp
"The S-Series chiller uses a direct-drive design that eliminates the
need for gears and, therefore, the need for an oil-based lubrication
system altogether. The HCFC-123 refrigerant used in the chiller not
only enables this direct-drive design; it allows for 5 to 20 percent
greater chiller efficiency and provides the lubrication for the
unit."
http://www.fpl.com/savings/energy_advisor/EA/PA_14.html
"Chillers that use HCFC-123 currently have the highest efficiencies,
down to
0.49 kilowatts per ton (kW/ton) at full load and ARI conditions "
Note - I don't like the change from Freon 12 to something else
either. I also don't like a "broad brush" conclusion that is
unsubstantiated.
Why? Are you against improving technology such as that which
occurred under the spur of the Montreal Protocol?? Do you not like
the idea of saving 25% on power costs?
Don't make the same mistake Bill is making. Re-read my comments
regarding capital expenditure vs. working fluid.
I read them. They were accurate but did not correct Bill on the main
point of his claim of low efficiency.
[/quote:220abb63c6]
I'm not so much correcting him on his point of low efficiency. I'm trying
to point out that the claim of "25% higher efficiency" may be erroneous when
taken out of context. You need to know something about the application,
physical and equipment size constraints, etc., before you can nail down the
efficiency improvement. Your posted links also say so. To paraphrase one
of the links, you can't optimize a whole refigeration system by optimizing
all of its parts.
[quote:220abb63c6]
Note - from an engineering standpoint, I liked Freon 12 because of
its excellent physical properties. It has a high molecular weight
(dense vapor), a relatively high heat of vaporization, is non-toxic
to humans, has a very high vapor pressure (it works well as a
refigerant at ambient conditions), etc.
The physical characteristics of HCFCs are not a whole lot different.
Most chillers can be converted by replacing the charge. Some
conversions use HCFC-123 which requires seal replacements, and
sometimes a larger compressor unit, but which can pay off easily in
increased efficiency.
[/quote:220abb63c6]
Now you're getting to a main point. If you want to maximize efficiency with
a new refrigerant, you would want to design new equipment specifically for
this refrigerant. If you are changing the refrigerant in an existing piece
of equipment, you may get higher efficiency, but that's not at all certain.
[quote:220abb63c6]
And yes, I realize that there may be reasons to try a different
refrigerant. With my background, I could design a refrigeration
process that uses a LOT of different working fluids, including
ammonia, the lighter hydrocarbons (C3, C4), various substituted
methane components, or damned near anything else that has a
substantial vapor pressure at ambient conditions. The most
desireable choice of working fluid involves an optimization problem,
where you look for the "best" set (e.g., non-toxic to people or the
environment) of physical properties that is also the most economic.
By "economic", I mean the combination of capital expenditure,
operating costs, and maintenance costs, over the life of the system.
So the real issue is not the loss of this 'vital CFC-11' working
fluid, is it? There are a lot of close equivalents or better options.
Payback on conversion of an old CFC-11 chiller with a new HCFC-123
unit can be under 9 months due to power savings alone.
[/quote:220abb63c6]
If you can believe the manufacturer's ads. But let's face it - they have a
vested interest in having people believe that the payout for their system
upgrade is short, don't they? I'm not saying that they are wrong. I'm
saying that it would be nice to see some independent data so I can draw my
own conclusion.
[quote:220abb63c6]
Final note - this is not about improving technology. Refrigeration
technology is well known, and consists of a process which is
actually a heat pump. Regardless of the working fluid you select,
you still have to go through the same steps to pump heat with a
"standard" refrigeration system:
* compress a condensible vapor
* condense that vapor against ambient air (or other working fluid)
* drop the pressure on the condensate
* boil the condensate with the heat contained within some type of
"box"
* send the low pressure boiled vapor to the condenser, where it can
liberate its heat to the ambient working fluid
Many conversion just change the controls, seals, and compressor while
leaving the bulk of the unit ( fans, and heat exchangers ) alone.[/quote:220abb63c6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| charliew2 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ian St. John wrote:
[quote:276a4d07bb]"charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
[/quote:276a4d07bb]
(cut)
[quote:276a4d07bb]
I'm not saying that they are wrong. I'm
saying that it would be nice to see some independent data so I can
draw my own conclusion.
I posted the references.
[/quote:276a4d07bb]
The references looked like sales ads, not engineering data. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:02 am
|
|